The Cause of Ocean Currents and the Jet Stream

Oceanography and meteorology are at odds with physics on this one. For some unknown reason they seem to think that there is no net lunar effect in the picture. I'm actually astounded by the literature available online from "official" bodies such as NOAA. It's bad information that seems to favor the global warming position ... just a little.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• ocean
• currents
• jet
• stream
• gyre
• elkman
• transport
• trade
• winds
• thermohaline
• conveyor
• belt
• Newton
• gravity
• lock
• tidal
• effect
• gulf
• oceanography
• meteorology
• physics
• NOAA
• global
• warming

[nathanhelfman]

The distancing of the moon as a function of the decrease in the speed of the earth is clear--the distancing, though miniscual, is real and cumulative. What is the corresponding (miniscual?) cumulative decrease in the speed of the earth and what would be the ramifications?

[Bantokfomoki]

@nathanhelfman I don't recall what the slowing rate is for the earth (look it up on Google if interested) but it's very small now. The moon gets pushed to a higher orbit each year by about 3 centimeters. Nothing here to worry about.

[nathanhelfman]

@Bantokfomoki Thanks...I was getting worried about those longer work days. Cheers.

[p71280]

They are not able to see the big picture. They are 2D thinker. We (some of us) are 3D thinkers.

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic They causes listed by NOAA and other official places (like universities) don't approximate the moon's contribution to ocean and air currents ... they omit it entirely. If that is the actual opinion of these "sciences" ... they would have to be downgraded to something less than a science ... something like "optometry" which is something like having someone measure your pants length in WalMart, i.e. what do I need them for? ;o)

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic The only possible debate here is A) I'm mistaken in thinking they don't understand this ... and B) They don't understand this for 'what' reason.

There is no debate possible about the physics. The moon does cause the ocean currents (along with a few other minor parameters). For this not to be correct ... Newton's laws of motion must be incorrect in this natural system. Newtonian physics trumps all meteorological observations ... if ... they indeed conflict with Newton.

[Barotropic]

@Barotropic Also note that the assumptions made in science are a result of approximations! I've yet to come across an assumption made by a scientist that did not involve an approximation of some kind.

[Barotropic]

@Bantokfomoki First, I am meteorologist. With that you'd be surprised how few meteorologists are "preoccupied" with global warming (climate change). Anyways, just in case you're unaware, assumptions are everywhere in science. What if the phenomenon under consideration is not evolving classically?. Then what? Also be aware that cause and effect relationships in science are very difficult to prove (disprove).

[Bantokfomoki]

@Barotropic The disconnect is definitely there. There is apparently no knowledge of the moon as an ocean current cause. I don't know why, but that's the prime mover.

The fundamental laws of physics don't constitute much of an assumption. This is high school stuff yet no mention is made of it by oceanographers or meteorologists. Maybe they're preoccupied with the global warming swindle.

[Barotropic]

I'd suggest reading more on the (many) assumptions made when developing theory of atmospheric and oceanic circulations before relegating it to a disconnect between different scientific disciplines.